Yeah, I figured as much. I am sure there is some convoluted way to make it work, but it would not nearly be worth it for what we would get out of it.
-ericOn Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently@gmail.com> wrote:Not really, because globals() both promises to return a normal
> Here's another outlandish idea. How about if descriptors could be used
> outside of classes. I.e. any global or local variable could be assigned a
> descriptor object and the descriptor protocol would be respected for that
> variable. This would be a pretty messy change, and I have no illusions that
> the idea will go anywhere. However, would there be room for this in python?
dictionary and to respect changes to the module globals made via that
dictionary.
All bets are off with locals(), but the globals() aspect already
spikes the idea, as it does many other ideas to do with speeding or
otherwise enhancing namespace lookups.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
May you do good and not evil
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
-- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html